Armored Princess - Review @ GameBanshee

December 16th, 2009, 15:19

GameBanshee has kicked up their review of Armoured Princess with a three-page article. They seem to have dropped the scores but the text is quite positive:

Armored Princess is a tactical turn-based RPG sequel of sorts to King's Bounty: The Legend, released just over a year ago. GameBanshee gave the original a 9.3 in a thorough review, so how does Armored Princess fare? While it uses the same engine, many of the same monsters, and much of the same music, Armored Princess is still a full-length game with an original story and innumerable small and medium-sized changes since its predecessor. Fortunately, they're nearly all for the better, making Armored Princess well worth your time and this series one that you shouldn't miss.

I kind of liked the scores. I don't place nearly as much value on them as on the content of the review obviously, but it was still nice to see a number there as a point of comparison. Of course, the comparison only has validity when the review is written by the same person.
I am somewhat skeptical of the formula though. Having only four categories really limits the scope of the review score. As an example, after reading your (Brother None's) reviews of Risen and Drakensang, the Drakensang review actually left a more negative impression with me, yet the score was significantly higher than for Risen. Am I correct in assuming that you felt Drakensang was the better game?

I tend to find Gamebanshee's reviews to be a little more thorough (and timely) than those at the Watch (ducks flying object), but I really like the fact that the Watch includes mini-reviews by different editors, since my tastes tend to correlate more closely with some than with others.
I wonder where Prime Junta is lurking these days…

Originally Posted by Geist
I kind of liked the scores. I don't place nearly as much value on them as on the content of the review obviously, but it was still nice to see a number there as a point of comparison. Of course, the comparison only has validity when the review is written by the same person.

GB review scores were always determined by the reviewer with little to not input from our Head Editor. Buck mostly just did some editorial rewrites to fix awkward phrasing and typos, and never changed anything without first looking for feedback, including scores.

Yes, that is a good way to work, but I had problems with it too, mostly with how inconsistent it made our scoring, since - for example - westlake was apt to score on a much higher scale than I was. That made game-to-game comparisons confusing

Originally Posted by Geist
I am somewhat skeptical of the formula though. Having only four categories really limits the scope of the review score. As an example, after reading your (Brother None's) reviews of Risen and Drakensang, the Drakensang review actually left a more negative impression with me, yet the score was significantly higher than for Risen. Am I correct in assuming that you felt Drakensang was the better game?

Yes, I did feel Drakensang the better game. However, the point of reviews is to highlight what I liked and disliked. If the Drakensang review left a more negative impression on you, that's partially due to my limitations as a writer (obviously), but it's also partially intended, as in: it might seem more negative to someone who has a tendency to be more put off by those aspects that I highlight as being bad. If you're all about snazzy combat and exploration, then Risen is better than Drakensang for you, despite it getting a lower score, and I would hope my reviews highlight that.

And that's exactly why I dislike scores. They give the wrong impression that I would recommend Drakensang over Risen to every single person who asks my opinion, and that's asinine, obviously I would not.

And, of course, scores encouraged lazy conclusions and dismissals by half-interested readers, and turned many a debate on a review to "why did he score it that?! He's stupid!" which was just pointless.

Originally Posted by Geist
I tend to find Gamebanshee's reviews to be a little more thorough (and timely) than those at the Watch (ducks flying object)

For a goodly part, this is due to us being able to pay our reviewers, and perhaps even procure review copies more easily. And we're late plenty of times too (I took way too long on my Risen and Borderlands reviews). The Watch does fine by any standards, let alone for a voluntary site.

Thanks for the explanation. As a reader, I like to see a score since I'm curious to know which game you, the reviewer, thought was better (particularly since my tastes tend to be fairly similar to yours). My gaming time is often limited which sometimes necessitates "tough" choices. If, for instance, I see that Dhruin, Brother None and VDweller all agree that game A is better than game B, it allows me to feel pretty confident that I made the right choice to invest my time into game A. Without a score, it can sometimes be difficult to judge.
That said, if I were reviewing a game, I might well feel differently. Perhaps the false impressions created by scores and pointless debates about the final numbers outweigh the benefits to the reader.

As for the Watch, it is definitely my favourite site for RPG info, but I find the style of reviews tends to vary a lot depending on who's doing the review. Some reviewers explain all the mechanics of how the game works, while others assume the reader already knows what the game is about and instead focus on qualitative assessments. Perhaps that lack of structure or guidelines isn't a bad thing as it opens the door for some interesting writing (Mike's STALKER review and PJs Witcher essay come to mind). I can't help getting impatient at times though - still waiting for the Eschalon Book 1 review

Originally Posted by Brother None
GB review scores were always determined by the reviewer with little to not input from our Head Editor. Buck mostly just did some editorial rewrites to fix awkward phrasing and typos, and never changed anything without first looking for feedback, including scores.

Yes, that is a good way to work, but I had problems with it too, mostly with how inconsistent it made our scoring, since - for example - westlake was apt to score on a much higher scale than I was. That made game-to-game comparisons confusing

Yes, I did feel Drakensang the better game. However, the point of reviews is to highlight what I liked and disliked. If the Drakensang review left a more negative impression on you, that's partially due to my limitations as a writer (obviously), but it's also partially intended, as in: it might seem more negative to someone who has a tendency to be more put off by those aspects that I highlight as being bad. If you're all about snazzy combat and exploration, then Risen is better than Drakensang for you, despite it getting a lower score, and I would hope my reviews highlight that.

And that's exactly why I dislike scores. They give the wrong impression that I would recommend Drakensang over Risen to every single person who asks my opinion, and that's asinine, obviously I would not.

I tend to ignore scores, except well, if it's really really low then I can save time by not reading the text. I usually disagree with most scores since some years ago, as it seems the focus of what makes a game 'good' turned into 'better graphics', 'multiplayer', 'dark,gritty,mature', 'lots of weapons', etc. which to me says nothing about the actual game.